Name people who were anomalies for their generation

[disasterzone]

For the GI Generation, Betty Freidan 

For Xer Anderson Cooper. 


Any other examples come to mind?

[pbrower2a]

Timothy Leary, Rachel Carson, Oral Roberts... GI
Eleanor Roosevelt, Fulton Sheen, Bayard Rustin, Elijah Mohammed... Lost.
Charles Manson... Silent

[freivolk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke
Rudi Dutschke was in the most famous leader of the german youth protest in the late sixties. Clearly Prophet-behaviour. But he was born 1940 so he should belong to the german post-war adaptive generation.

Kaiser Wilhelm II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II...an_Emperor
Born 1859. If you set now the end of the german unity crisis on 1866 or 1871, he should in both cases still be adaptive. But again his behaviour is much more prophet.

[disasterzone]

(03-02-2017, 03:39 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Timothy Leary, Rachel Carson, Oral Roberts... GI
Eleanor Roosevelt, Fulton Sheen, Bayard Rustin, Elijah Mohammed... Lost.
Charles Manson... Silent

Timothy Leary seems prophet to me. Oral Roberts seems extremely like the Silent Generation to me, especially the first half. Manson seems like a proto Xer. Do you have the same impressions?

BTW Bayard Rustin was GI.

[Eric the Green]

(03-02-2017, 02:58 AM)disasterzone Wrote: For the GI Generation, Betty Freidan 

For Xer Anderson Cooper. 


Any other examples come to mind?

Van Jones seems to have escaped the cynicism of the X Generation. I'm sure there's others too, like Kirsten Gillibrand. But they may be typical nomads in other ways.

Perhaps David Bowie was a prophet who was like an Xer ahead of his time.

[disasterzone]

(03-04-2017, 04:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote='disasterzone' pid='22221' dateline='1488441497']
For the GI Generation, Betty Freidan 

For Xer Anderson Cooper. 


Any other examples come to mind?

Van Jones seems to have escaped the cynicism of the X Generation. I'm sure there's others too, like Kirsten Gillibrand. But they may be typical nomads in other ways.

Perhaps David Bowie was a prophet who was like an Xer ahead of his time.

Bowie had some Xer style rebellious attitude. Van Jones seems Boomerish to me.

I think Bonnie and Clyde were like the Lost Generation before their time.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-04-2017, 04:43 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(03-04-2017, 04:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-02-2017, 02:58 AM)disasterzone Wrote: Van Jones seems to have escaped the cynicism of the X Generation. I'm sure there's others too, like Kirsten Gillibrand. But they may be typical nomads in other ways.

Perhaps David Bowie was a prophet who was like an Xer ahead of his time.

Van Jones = X'er, bu seems to be a Joneser.
Of course,  this is weird, Rags = "Jonserer". 

Rags is focused likea laser geem wrt  Orrvdioll damn


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\eriic the  geeen ,    hi   \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\Sdixxk  | Ddiskm   FF=============================================\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\IXKK   '''''''''''''Dfa sossa  anf;'a odssoois
Owwcisll fo qeoedkl o qnNRL        wEEIISL, xIDLEOENIN  FO  RO QOEEELS.

[Marypoza]

I want whatever Rags is smoking

[Bill the Piper]

Tolkien (born 1892) was not a Lost at all. With his ecological sensitivity and whimsical hobby of constructing Elvish languages, he looks like a proto-Silent.

[pbrower2a]

Ayn Rand, the definitive anti-collectivist.

Don Knotts and Don Adams seemed to be much more Silent than GI.

Marlon Brando (born 1924) seems to be the Silent and Paul Newman (born 1925) seems to be the GI.

Barack Obama seems to have blended characteristics of of Boom and Millennial masculinity, which is unusual for a Reactive/Nomad.

Josef Stalin seems more Reactive than Idealist.

[Bill the Piper]

(09-16-2018, 06:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Ayn Rand, the definitive anti-collectivist.

Her rationalism and support for technology is, however, very G.I.

[pbrower2a]

(09-17-2018, 03:57 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(09-16-2018, 06:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Ayn Rand, the definitive anti-collectivist.

Her rationalism and support for technology is, however, very G.I.

I know of no generation going back to the 1600s that didn't support some technology for some purpose.  The use could be for building big (GI leadership) or doing using technology to get subtle effects with huge consequences (Boom). But this said, Ayn Rand's rationalism atomizes people except in their servile relationship to the Master Class.

GI leadership tended (except among Southern agrarian racists) to hold that the common man needed a stake in the system, and that was consumerism. Rand has had audiences far more accepting as readers and policy-makers among Boomers (like Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump) and X (like Paul Ryan) who seem to believe that the social optimum is wretched excess in elite indulgence that overpowers the proles by dazzling them with castles and palaces (even if the edifices are only McMansions).

[Bill the Piper]

Does Trump have any Idealist traits? I don't think so. His bully-style masculinity, hedonism and lack of interest in moral or spiritual issues seems Reactive to me. He is sort of Xer born too early. Actual boomers seem to despise him, while he is more popular among Xers.

Vladimir Putin and the autocrat of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko have very similar traits despite having been born in the early 1950s.

[pbrower2a]

(10-22-2018, 07:19 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Does Trump have any Idealist traits? I don't think so. His bully-style masculinity, hedonism and lack of interest in moral or spiritual issues seems Reactive to me. He is sort of Xer born too early. Actual boomers seem to despise him, while he is more popular among Xers.

Vladimir Putin and the autocrat of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko have very similar traits despite having been born in the early 1950s.

He is ruthless, arrogant, and selfish -- the Dark Side of Idealist generations as Howe and Strauss see it. He may be decisive, but he is decisively wrong. His vision is undeniably reactionary. His culture is populist schlock. He reminds me of Idealists at their worst: exploiters who demand to be seen as benefactors to those that they even have as slaves. If you wonder why the Southern Transcendental generation could make so fervent a defense of slavery, they were convinced that slavery was the best of all possible worlds for people who needed the firm and loving kindness of a wise master.

Contrast Obama, who is the better aspects of a Reactive generation -- perceptive, shrewd, and respectful of precedent -- without showing the greed, revenge-seeking, and cynicism common of young-to-midlife Reactive adults. As shown by the last three Reactive Presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, and Obama) a Reactive leader can be very effective except at growing a power base. Obama and Truman at the least knew enough to let older Idealists do the moral preaching.


Trump is getting away with what a Reactive leader could not get away with unless the Reactive leader is a despot or tyrant. Fair, free, and competitive elections will test how desirable the Trump agenda is -- assuming that we get them.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-22-2018, 07:19 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Does Trump have any Idealist traits? I don't think so. His bully-style masculinity, hedonism and lack of interest in moral or spiritual issues seems Reactive to me. He is sort of Xer born too early. Actual boomers seem to despise him, while he is more popular among Xers.

Vladimir Putin and the autocrat of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko have very similar traits despite having been born in the early 1950s.

Trump is  a bad Boomer.  I'd submit the folks in the former Soviet block are a turning ahead of ours. So yes, Putin and Lukashenko would be nomads.  Putin is a good example of a nomad. Russia isn't the US, so Russians don't mind authoritarianism. Next, Putin is a lot more competent than all of the utter dolts running the West. The west is run by a basket full of whores for the global elites and idiots who favor unrestrained migration.

[Galen]

(10-22-2018, 12:42 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Trump is  a bad Boomer.  I'd submit the folks in the former Soviet block are a turning ahead of ours. So yes, Putin and Lukashenko would be nomads.  Putin is a good example of a nomad. Russia isn't the US, so Russians don't mind authoritarianism. Next, Putin is a lot more competent than all of the utter dolts running the West. The west is run by a basket full of whores for the global elites and idiots who favor unrestrained migration.

Putin is very competent and not to be taken lightly.  Israel found that out the hard way after causing that IL-20 to be shot down.  Which is why Assad now has a new S-300 air defense system and Syria is now effectively a no-fly zone for Israel.  You might consider what Justin Raimondo has to say about Russia and the way the major parties in the US are realigning on the war question.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-22-2018, 11:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: He is ruthless, arrogant, and selfish -- the Dark Side of Idealist generations as Howe and Strauss see it. He may be decisive, but he is decisively wrong. His vision is undeniably reactionary. His culture is populist schlock. He reminds me of Idealists at their worst: exploiters who demand to be seen as benefactors to those that they even have as slaves. If you wonder why the Southern Transcendental generation could make so fervent a defense of slavery, they were convinced that slavery was the best of all possible worlds for people who needed the firm and loving kindness of a wise master.

Contrast Obama, who is the better aspects of a Reactive generation -- perceptive, shrewd, and respectful of precedent -- without showing the greed, revenge-seeking, and cynicism common of young-to-midlife Reactive adults. As shown by the last three Reactive Presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, and Obama) a Reactive leader can be very effective except at growing a power base. Obama and Truman at the least knew enough to let older Idealists do the moral preaching.


Trump is getting away with what a Reactive leader could not get away with unless the Reactive leader is a despot or tyrant. Fair, free, and competitive elections will test how desirable the Trump agenda is -- assuming that we get them.

Speaking of Obama, I see more Idealist traits in him than you do. His ability to inspire and bond with Millennials parallels the appeal of Missionary leaders to the G.I.s. He was strongly motivated with his moral convictions derived from the 60s and 70s leftism. Perhaps the most controversial thing he did was to pull troops out of Iraq in the middle of the Arab Spring. It was not perceptive or shrewd, but reflected his dogmatic belief that Occupation Is Wrong.

[pbrower2a]

(10-23-2018, 05:33 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 11:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: He is ruthless, arrogant, and selfish -- the Dark Side of Idealist generations as Howe and Strauss see it. He may be decisive, but he is decisively wrong. His vision is undeniably reactionary. His culture is populist schlock. He reminds me of Idealists at their worst: exploiters who demand to be seen as benefactors to those that they even have as slaves. If you wonder why the Southern Transcendental generation could make so fervent a defense of slavery, they were convinced that slavery was the best of all possible worlds for people who needed the firm and loving kindness of a wise master.

Contrast Obama, who is the better aspects of a Reactive generation -- perceptive, shrewd, and respectful of precedent -- without showing the greed, revenge-seeking, and cynicism common of young-to-midlife Reactive adults. As shown by the last three Reactive Presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, and Obama) a Reactive leader can be very effective except at growing a power base. Obama and Truman at the least knew enough to let older Idealists do the moral preaching.


Trump is getting away with what a Reactive leader could not get away with unless the Reactive leader is a despot or tyrant. Fair, free, and competitive elections will test how desirable the Trump agenda is -- assuming that we get them.

Speaking of Obama, I see more Idealist traits in him than you do. His ability to inspire and bond with Millennials parallels the appeal of Missionary leaders to the G.I.s. He was strongly motivated with his moral convictions derived from the 60s and 70s leftism. Perhaps the most controversial thing he did was to pull troops out of Iraq in the middle of the Arab Spring. It was not perceptive or shrewd, but reflected his dogmatic belief that Occupation Is Wrong.

Howe and Strauss said that the Silent Generation as adults often picked and chose between characteristics of both a Civic (typically the GI Generation, for they could have never known anything else fully Civic except in history books) and an Idealist (Boom? I think they might have known the Missionary Generation fairly well) as adults, often getting incongruous or troublesome results. Think of two Silent comedians (Woody Allen and Bill Cosby) who really messed things up. GI-style rationality meets Boom-style sexual experimentation?

The Lost could never cadge together elements of Civic and Idealist behavior because they never got to know a pure Civic type as adults until the Lost were themselves adults, the last Civic generation before them (the Republican generation of Thomas Jefferson) having died off before the 1880s. But Obama's Generation X could get to know the GI generation well in the form of his maternal grandparents. He did get to choose between Boomer and GI traits (the latter relevant to the Millennial generation). The result is the best sort of Reactive leader possible -- someone without the cynicism, greed, bigotry, and revenge-seeking characteristic of Reactive types who never realize that such ultimately destroys what they cherish -- and picks and chooses between social tradition and technical modernity to the benefit of both. As a President, Obama reminds me much more of Eisenhower and Truman than to any prior Presidents, and those were very good Presidents, for practice and character. Truman and Eisenhower got to know and respect the GI generation very well, often as fully-developed adults, before either became President. Obama got to know the GI generation very well when  that generation was 40 and up from his childhood. Getting to know GIs as children or young adults and getting to know them as middle-aged or old is very different, but they were good people as influences.

Obama could cadge the best of the Idealist and Civic types and be what he is. It's a very good thing. Out of phase with the time? He was President of the United States when the Civic component was at its weakest, when it was going from very old GIs (84+ when he was elected to 92+) to the Millennial Generation (26 at most to 35 at most). Howe and Strauss suggested the value of pre-seasonal leadership as a means of protecting and promoting what most needs both, but for many Americans that is like getting swimming trunks ready and preparing the boat for a summer in Minnesota -- in February. It is awkward, but I can see our political system sorting out the best sorts of post-Crisis leadership from Generation X. America will be sick of invective, controversy, and pointless crusades after the Crisis is over; it will need someone who can know when to judge and when to back off for reasons other than gain or gut instinct. Such is the Reactive style at its best, and one that only the Reactive can do well.

I will have more to say about the transition from the generational component in high public office after the 2018 election. Many incumbents stand to be defeated, and that usually implies younger pols supplanting those who retire or are defeated. American leadership is now decidedly old, with an inordinate number of Boomers (58-75) and Silent (76 to 93) in high office.

[Bill the Piper]

Trump is amoral, pecuniary and uncultured: three negative attributes of a Reactive leader. He seems to have some Millennial (!) traits too, as his leadership style pretends to be grand and focuses on building (e.g. the wall on the US-Mexico border).

A bad boomer would be a fanatic, someone like Osama.

[pbrower2a]

(10-24-2018, 11:11 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Trump is amoral, pecuniary and uncultured: three negative attributes of a Reactive leader. He seems to have some Millennial (!) traits too, as his leadership style pretends to be grand and focuses on building (e.g. the wall on the US-Mexico border).

A bad boomer would be a fanatic, someone like Osama.

Contrast Obama -- he has had the cleanest Administration in a long time. He doesn't seem to be grasping for money. Culture? He is secretive about that. I don't even know what music he listens to or his preference in painting.

With Trump -- delusions of grandeur are the norm among despotic leaders.  You ought to see the dwellings of such tyrants as Saddam Hussein and Nicolae Ceausescu. Trump taste is little better. Let's put it this way: 10 Downing Street, long-time residence of the Prime Minister of the UK is middle-class by contrast even if someone so powerful as Sir Winston occupied it.